On Dec 11, 2013, at 00:02 , Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Dec 10, 2013, at 23:47 , Doug Franklin do...@nutdriver.org wrote:
I don't recall who started this thread, but if you're not set on AF, or
maybe even AE, I have a K 400/5.6 with case and a Tokina SD 400/5.6 in PK-A.
Zos Xavius wrote:
Lots of vintage lenses overexpose. I have a few lenses that constantly
are compensated with -1 EV. As long as its consistent its not that big
of a deal. My A35-105 seems to overexpose in bright light, but as soon
as I get to dim light it seems to start exposing normally. Go
On 2013-12-11 1:02, Charles Robinson wrote:
400mm on an APS-C. Yow! I shouldn't ask, but I will.. - how much?
I haven't really thought about it. The lens in in great shape, but the
case is a bit beat up.
--
Doug Lefty Franklin
NutDriver Racing
http://NutDriver.org
Facebook NutDriver
Any of the first three versions of the Vivatar 70-210mm Series 1 lenses
can be had for between $70 and $190 depending on model and condition,
and as you probably know the third Version can be had in A mount. The
Pentax F 70-210 can be had in the same price range. Good copies are
very good
They are prone to a particular type of failure. (a screw holding a
follower lever can come lose jamming both the zoom and focus mechanisms
at the same time allowing the information brush to be mangled, (that
part is made from unobtainium by the way), however and the price has
gone up and down.
If you dont mind manual focus, the SMC A70-210/4 is an outstanding
optic, very sharp at all focal lengths and apertures.
On 12/12/2013 4:04 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
They are prone to a particular type of failure. (a screw holding a
follower lever can come lose jamming both the zoom and focus
Charles -
Since you have the F 70-210 on the way this is obviously too late, but
another option might be the FA 80-320 f4.5-5.6. I've been quite
satisfied with mine, though it is rather slow and very noisy (makes a
high pitched geary noise when it focuses.)
WRT 400mm f5.6 lenses - even with
On Dec 12, 2013, at 15:04 , P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
They are prone to a particular type of failure. (a screw holding a follower
lever can come lose jamming both the zoom and focus mechanisms at the same
time allowing the information brush to be mangled, (that part is
Lots of vintage lenses overexpose. I have a few lenses that constantly
are compensated with -1 EV. As long as its consistent its not that big
of a deal. My A35-105 seems to overexpose in bright light, but as soon
as I get to dim light it seems to start exposing normally. Go figure.
On Thu, Dec
On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:02 pm, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
400mm on an APS-C. Yow!
Sometimes even that isn't enough!
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Alastair Robertson
kiwibiolog...@gmail.com wrote:
the Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED is rated quite highly if you want to
buy new and should be in your budget
Second that, I have it and it's very good value for money.
The 50-200 is even cheaper but apparently
On Dec 10, 2013, at 14:05 , Attila Boros attila.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Alastair Robertson
kiwibiolog...@gmail.com wrote:
the Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED is rated quite highly if you want to
buy new and should be in your budget
Second that, I have it and
Well, there must be copy-to-copy variation, because I've been happy with mine;
and none of the scores of photos I've taken with it and posted here have been
criticized for softness.
The most recent was this one (115mm, f/5.6):
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17616306size=lg
Rick
On
On Dec 10, 2013, at 15:32 , Rick Womer rwomer1...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well, there must be copy-to-copy variation, because I've been happy with
mine; and none of the scores of photos I've taken with it and posted here
have been criticized for softness.
The most recent was this one (115mm,
I don't recall who started this thread, but if you're not set on AF, or
maybe even AE, I have a K 400/5.6 with case and a Tokina SD 400/5.6 in PK-A.
--
Doug Lefty Franklin
NutDriver Racing
http://NutDriver.org
Facebook NutDriver Racing
Sponsored by Murphy
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On Dec 10, 2013, at 23:47 , Doug Franklin do...@nutdriver.org wrote:
I don't recall who started this thread, but if you're not set on AF, or maybe
even AE, I have a K 400/5.6 with case and a Tokina SD 400/5.6 in PK-A.
'twas me... I've got a $110 Pentax-F 70-210 heading my way from KEH right
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 04:29:04PM -0600, Charles Robinson wrote:
Is there anything out there that is even remotely close to the 50-135 f/2.8
that costs less than $350, or am I just dreaming?
A bit over a year ago, I picked up a manual focus Tokina 80-200/2.8 for
about $150.
I think the
Consensus bang for the buck would be the Pentax-F SMC 70-210mm
f4-4.6 (NOT the Takumar-F version).
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-70-210mm-F4-5.6-Zoom-Lens.html
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/photos/gallery/query?camera=lens=930
You can find 'em for under a $100 pretty
On Dec 9, 2013, at 16:40 , Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I don't shoot concerts often enough (and it's just for fun) to justify even
the used 50-135 at KEH for $500, even though I know that's a bargain for
that lens.
Damn! KEH has a 50-135 for $500? !!!
$546 actually. Sorry I
On Dec 9, 2013, at 16:46 , Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Consensus bang for the buck would be the Pentax-F SMC 70-210mm
f4-4.6 (NOT the Takumar-F version).
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-F-70-210mm-F4-5.6-Zoom-Lens.html
the Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4-5.8 ED is rated quite highly if you want to
buy new and should be in your budget - note the new WR version would
be more pricey than this.
The 50-200 is even cheaper but apparently optically not that great.
I haven't used either but I can second Darren's suggestion for
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 2013, at 16:40 , Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
I don't shoot concerts often enough (and it's just for fun) to justify even
the used 50-135 at KEH for $500, even though I know that's a bargain for
that
Charles,
If you find two of the 70-210 tele's. Let ME KNOW! I have been
looking and it's either going to be that one or a replacement for my
30-135 (which is really old and a manual lens...Golly you have to focus
and zoom it at the same time.)
John G - WA1JG
On 12/9/2013 5:56 PM,
Or come up with an arm and a leg and get the 60-250/4. Best lens I've ever
owned, and my editors agree.
Paul via phone
On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 2013, at 16:40 ,
On Dec 9, 2013, at 17:16 , John jh.gra...@verizon.net wrote:
Charles,
If you find two of the 70-210 tele's. Let ME KNOW! I have been looking and
it's either going to be that one or a replacement for my 30-135 (which is
really old and a manual lens...Golly you have to focus and zoom it
25 matches
Mail list logo
